Drone Attack

So, according to you, a car traveling from NYC to Boston is not halted while the driver has lunch along the way? It's just "slowed down"? That would be a new version of physics, but then you are always way out there.

ROFL

Wrong, always wrong.

Look up the definition. And so far, what Trump got is an end to the halt and a resumption of enrichment to 20%. Nice work Trump! He also managed to get Iran, UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China all agreeing and on one side, saying what Trump is doing is wrong, that Iran was complying. They are all on one side, against the US. Now that is some achievement. And we shall see where big mouth, big balls Trump, who talks like you do gets with Iran. So far all we have to show for what he's done is Iran returning to enrichment, the US isolated from our allies, 4 tankers hit and on fire, one Saudi power plant blown up, one US drone fired on, one shot down. Trump is like Charlie Sheen, I'm winning!, I'm winning! At least Sheen's insanity could be attributed to drugs.

We certainly encouraged it and then bombed. This is like saying because someone else started an assault and you only joined in the attack, the guy getting killed had nothing to do with you.

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news:07fec0cf-30a6-4601-854a- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

I'll add this to the list of chuckles I have made at your inane lits announcements.

Why don't you post your entire lits, boy?

It will sure make for some good, hearty laughter.

Bwuahahahahaa!

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news:07fec0cf-30a6-4601-854a- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

What part of 'no longer relavent" do you not understand?

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

"Stopping for lunch" along the way is a slower run than not stopping for lunch.

Same car, same driver, different runtime. One is slower than the other. Why? One stopped for lunch.

e:

:

in expressing a favourite right-wing misconception.

lly

gineered by any foreign power.

And your evidence for the claim that the major power helped the uprisings i s?

You are fantasising - as usual - and expecting the rest of the world to tak e your fantasies seriously.

In Libya, the bombing was confined to Gaddafi's terrorist columns.

It might have helped the various rebels, but the main aim was to stop Gadda fi from killing civilians.

change. Capiche?

Were they? Where's your evidence? What they were calling for was a negotiat ed ceasefire - and granting Gaddafi's somewhat psychotic behaviour that was necessarily going to involve a regime change - but the main aim was to get back to some kind of peace and stability, rather than some specific new re gime.

Sane people - not just liberals - aren't going take your fantasies seriousl y.

Because the problem wasn't created by Obama, and there doesn't seem to have been anything he could have done to prevent any of thse deaths.

Who? Where? Post a link to this implausible claim.

ign intervention or other -for which there is absolutely no evidence.

rth Korea and anyone else considering nuclear weapons.

that is rebelling.

own economy and infra-structure inot non-existence?

ance

I have to keep reminding you that NATO wasn't bombing Gaddafi's murderous f lying columns to support the rebels, but to minimise the number of civilian deaths.

The targets would have been different if supporting the rebels had been the main aim.

There aren't any, but a country that had fallen apart to the extent that Li bya had wouldn't have had a enough control of any of the nukes that they mi ght had to be able to use them to deter foreign intervention.

What makes you think that? Apart from congenital stupidity, of course.

ead, you can always cut it off.

rial,

roke up his convoy left him vulnerable to his own people, but the airstrike was aimed at stopping Gaddafi moving his troops around to terrorise the po pulation at large. It wasn't directed at Gaddafi himself - nobody outside t he convoy would have known that he was in it.

e not

and

t to right-wing conspiracy theories.

It was a spur of the moment improvisation, and not all that good.

The gloating is all in your imagination.

It's a play on Caeser's "Veni, vidi, vedici". Trump isn't well enough educa ted to know the original (and you don't seem to be either).

s going to be a temptation for better organised countries to go in and gra b the nuclear weapons before some criminal gang gets hold of them and sells them to the highest bidder.

n the hands of the regime that is being revolted against. As soon as that h appens, international intervention becomes very likely, purely as a precaut ionary measure.

A country in enough disorder that they haven't got control of their nuclear weapons is a rather softer target, and the downside of letting some third part get them is considerable.

Please keep demonstrating what an idiot you are. I respond to your moronic points in order to persuade you to damn yourself even further with even mor e moronic reactions.

It does seem to be working remarkably well.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Says the mindless idiot.

Population of Pakistan - 197 million. They got nuclear weapons quite a while ago.

Population of North Korea - 25.47 million. The entire country is poor and depressed because a lot of their GNP has been devoted to getting nuclear weapons.

Population of Libya - 6.375 million. They weren't in the hunt - Gaddafi did have oil money, but nobody would have trusted the guy with nuclear weapons.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Evidence?

Not exactly what happened. Gaddafi's anti-rebel tactics starting killing off a lot of more or less innocent civilians, and the interventions were aimed at mininising deaths amongst innocent civilians.

It isn't exactly a subtle differenc from the story you want us to believe, but you are too stupid to appreciate it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[on the old Libya siuation]

Only in the sense that preventing a military force with artillery from using those area weapons against civilian targets (towns) is 'help'. Preventing terroristic, genocidal violence is worthwhile regardless of any merits of 'the opposition'.

Bombing (area weapons) wasn't the nature of the effort, but interdiction of heavy weapons systems; civilian casualties were light, under 80, because people weren't targeted.

So, bombing is the wrong descriptive word, and 'help the opposition' ignores the fact that the opposition wasn't identified, wasn't a single group, and wasn't coordinating any of the efforts. These aren't fine distinctions, the above statement is... a deception.

.

ved

op.

he

d

ile ago.

depressed because a lot of their GNP has been devoted to getting nuclear w eapons.

id have oil money, but nobody would have trusted the guy with nuclear weapo ns.

Population of Israel, 8 mil. Doh! There goes another dopey argument. And here is some of what Libya was doing to develop nuclear weapons, including getting help from the infamous A Q Khan. I should add you to the list of wrong, always wrong.

In 1997, Libya began receiving nuclear weapons-related aid from Dr. A.Q. K han, the chief architect of the Pakistani nuclear weapons program and confe ssed proliferator of nuclear technologies to several countries of concern, including Iran and North Korea. This cooperation continued until fall 2003, when Khan's clandestine collaboration with these countries became public f ollowing Libya's disclosures about its efforts to build nuclear weapons. In 1997, Khan supplied Libya with the 20 assembled L-1 centrifuges, [29] and components for an additional 200 more intended for a pilot facility. In 200

1, Libya received almost two tons of UF6; while some reports claim that Pak istan provided the UF6, [30] others cite evidence that it originated in Nor th Korea. [31] IAEA sources believe that amount of UF6 is consistent with t he requirements for a pilot enrichment facility. If enriched, the UF6 could produce a single nuclear weapon. [32] In late 1997, Libya also renewed its nuclear cooperation with Russia, and in March 1998 Libya signed a contract with the Russian company Atomenergoeksport for a partial overhaul of the T ajoura Nuclear Research Center. [33]

In late 2000, Libya's nuclear activities accelerated. Libyan authorities ha ve informed the IAEA that at that time, Libya began to order centrifuges an d components from other countries with the intention of installing a centri fuge plant to make enriched uranium. Libya also imported equipment for a fa irly large precision machine shop (located at Janzour) and acquired a large stock of maraging steel and high strength aluminum alloy to build a domest ic centrifuge production capability. [34] In September 2000, Libya received two L-2 centrifuges (European-designed centrifuges more advanced than the L-1). In late 2000, Libya began to progressively install 9-machine, 19-mach ine, and 64-machine L-1 centrifuge cascades into a large hall at Al Hashan. [35] Only the 9-centrifuge machine was completely assembled in 2002. [36] Libya also ordered 10,000 L-2 centrifuges from Pakistan. By late December 2

002, component parts for the centrifuges began arriving in Libya. [37] Howe ver, in October 2003, U.S. intelligence agencies seized a subsequent consig nment of centrifuge-related equipment bound for Libya in a northern Mediter ranean port. [38] Investigations revealed that many of these components wer e manufactured by the Scomi Precision Engineering SDN BHD plant in Malaysia with "roles played by foreign technical, manufacturing, and transshipment experts, including A.Q. Khan and his associates at A.Q. Khan Laboratories i n Pakistan, B.S.A. Tahgir in Malaysia and Dubai, and several Swiss, British , and German nationals." [39]

Libya sought not only the capability to enrich uranium to weapon-grade leve ls, but also the know-how to design and fabricate nuclear weapons. [40] In either late 2001 or early 2002, A.Q. Khan provided Libya with the blueprint for a fission weapon. [41] According to the February 2004 IAEA report, Lib ya acknowledged receiving from a foreign source in late 2001 or early 2002, documentation related to nuclear weapon design and fabrication. "The docum ents presented by Libya include a series of engineering drawings relating t o nuclear weapons components, notes, (many of them handwritten) related to the fabrication of weapon components. The notes indicate the involvement of other parties and will require follow-up." [42] U.S. intelligence analysts believe the documents included a nuclear weapon design that China tested i n the late 1960s and allegedly later shared with Pakistan. Reportedly, the design documents produced by Libya were transferred from Pakistan, containe d information in both Chinese and English and set forth the design paramete rs and engineering specifications for constructing an implosion weapon weig hing over 1,000 pounds, that could be delivered using an aircraft or a larg e ballistic missile. [43] Libya ultimately told IAEA investigators that it had no national personnel competent to evaluate these designs at that time, and would have had to ask the supplier for help if it had decided to pursu e a nuclear weapon. [44]

ote:

te:

rkin expressing a favourite right-wing misconception.

ually

engineered by any foreign power.

is?

They bombed the Libyan govt military, fool.

ake your fantasies seriously.

They weren't terrorists fool, they were the Libyan military. Of course some commie like Fidel, defending Cuba against rebels, why those would be "freedom fighters". ROFL

dafi from killing civilians.

me change. Capiche?

I live here and I heard what she and Obama were saying, Kangaroo humper. Google it.

What they were calling for was a negotiated ceasefire - and granting Gadda fi's somewhat psychotic behaviour that was necessarily going to involve a r egime change

And yet above you try to deny it!

- but the main aim was to get back to some kind of peace and stability, rat her than some specific new regime.

I didn't say they wanted a "specific regime". I said they wanted a regime change.

sly.

ve been anything he could have done to prevent any of thse deaths.

Boy, if Trump ever does similar, well, then you libs will have a very different opinion.

Why do you just spout ignorance instead of following what is actually going on?

reign intervention or other -for which there is absolutely no evidence.

North Korea and anyone else considering nuclear weapons.

n that is rebelling.

s own economy and infra-structure inot non-existence?

e

France

flying columns to support the rebels, but to minimise the number of civili an deaths.

Sure, you can continue to try to stick to that fig leaf.

he main aim.

d?

Nuff said.

but a country that had fallen apart to the extent that Libya had wouldn't have had a enough control of any of the nukes that they might had to be abl e to use them to deter foreign intervention.

head, you can always cut it off.

terial,

broke up his convoy left him vulnerable to his own people, but the airstri ke was aimed at stopping Gaddafi moving his troops around to terrorise the population at large. It wasn't directed at Gaddafi himself - nobody outside the convoy would have known that he was in it.

ere not

t and

ict to right-wing conspiracy theories.

Sure, poor widdle Hillary, any excuse will do, she's a lib. Fortunately we have her on tape gloating about killing Gaddafi.

cated to know the original (and you don't seem to be either).

I know what Hillary said, how she gloated, we have it on tape. Why must libs always lie?

e's going to be a temptation for better organised countries to go in and g rab the nuclear weapons before some criminal gang gets hold of them and sel ls them to the highest bidder.

in the hands of the regime that is being revolted against. As soon as that happens, international intervention becomes very likely, purely as a preca utionary measure.

ar weapons is a rather softer target,

Yeah, sure. Show us examples of these nuclear weapons that are "softer targets". There aren't any. And even if there are some, that doesn't mean that said country doesn't have 500 more that aren't soft targets and are ready for launch. You libs really are something.

and the downside of letting some third part get them is considerable.

c points in order to persuade you to damn yourself even further with even m ore moronic reactions.

You have the monopoly on moronic points.

Sloman will always use this tactic when he knows he's lost the argument: demand his interlocutor post proof of an assertion - then invariably disparage the source of that evidence. So do yourself a favour and KF the fool already, because you'll *never* prove anything to his satisfaction.

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of  
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet  
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

Stopped = halted. Wrong, always wrong. And are you happy now? Iran went from halted, taking lunch in the analogy, to proceeding now to 20% enrichment. The car is moving again. Capiche? Happy? Is this another neocon success, like regime change in Iraq?

One man's civilian target is another's armed rebels. The US has drones flying over many countries today, we get a rebel in our sites, missile away, Bam they and those civilians around them are dead. That's what Gaddafi would say, if he was alive. But he's not, we helped kill him.

Yet we are very selective about who we decide to bomb over genocide.

It's irrelevant as to who the opposition was. Sure, it was a mix of all kinds of groups, including terrorists. Just like in Syria and other places. Obama/Hillary didn't care, it was just that they wanted regime change, wanted Gaddafi to go and ignored the likely consequences, just like Bush did in Iraq. Just like Trump is now doing while waging war on Iran.

You mean like when he asked about "what Hillary gloating" over killing Gaddafi? And where we have the video of her doing exactly that, saying "we came, we saw, he died" and laughing? Where he then says that's not gloating, it's just Hillary being caught off guard?

ROFL

Yeah, been there done that. Just did it again where Bill denies that Libya was doing anything to develop nuclear weapons and I gave his a reference that documents all that they were doing through the decades, including buying nuclear designs from A Q Kahn? I suppose he'll tell us that was just for Gaddafi's scrap book, his curiousity?

States rights are just as relevant today, more so actually, as they were at our founding. You're just another sore loser that doesn't like the results of the last election.

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news:74b5c0e0-a703-4ab1-89b5- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You need to stop using that. It makes you look more retarded than even where it comes from.

Yeah... I picked the right tool when I said "NYPD broomstick handle". The thoroughly splintered in both directions variety.

Capiche that, putz.

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

I complained abut the electoral college back in the seventies, you thoroughly retarded punk f*ck.

You should have your Doctor up your Thorazine dose. Then do about five times that amount all at once.

I tackled him some time ago on this precise issue. He denied and denied, so I had to search and find the particular video and post a link to it. Even then he *still* denied she was gloating! I gave the matter some thought and came to these conclusions which you yourself will also reach if you haven't already:

1) No matter how persuasive the evidence, he will find some excuse to dismiss it. 2) He's totally impervious to all reason. 3) He's ignorant and extremely ill-informed. 4) He is, at his core, downright Evil.

As I've said before, unless you specifically enjoy arguing for the sake of it, KF the damn fool already.

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of  
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet  
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.